Esmond
Wright
I
still don't have the almost instinctive grasp of American history
that i find in myself over the British variety; i suppose this is
because the one was not put into my brain
through stories, books, classes, while i was young enough to take it
in without realising it, whereas the other most certainly was.
Influenced, i suppose, by my many years of living in the United
States, i feel strongly that this lack of grasp is a weakness in
me, though i am well aware that the average American probably doesn't
know as much of their own history as do i, and it is a weakness i am
always willing to correct; Wright's book was the latest venture in
that direction.
I
have learned some, though of course the outlines were familiar to me
previously, of both Washington's biography and the course of the
Revolution ~ as well as some of its causes; more, though, i have
taken pleasure in the quality of the writing, which is never preachy,
nor overly rhetorical, but simple and easy to follow (i only recall
one name i had to chase down for a previous reference, despite taking
some weeks to read the book), clear and good prose. I shall, which i
don't often do with history, see if i can find more of Wright's
writings to pursue.
Gordon
Brown
I
was a little disappointed in this book, i have to confess. I could
not help comparing it, even unconsciously, with JFK's
Portraits of Courage,
which comparison must have been in the back of Brown's mind when he
conceived of and produced the work; and i am not sure that the
comparison is to Brown's benefit.
Kennedy's
book has its drawbacks or weaknesses, not least the suspicion that it
was largely written by someone else, but it was and is an enjoyable
book; though this one is, i would suspect, more completely “All my
own work!” than Kennedy's, Brown does not have a sparkling prose
style. A highly successful Chancellor, in part because he had the
earned reputation of being able to destroy his detractors in
Parliament or the press, the iron fist style is not so useful in
writing what was surely conceived as a collection of popular
biographies. Writing for the public, one does not want to bludgeon
one's readers into appreciation; that way lies an ever diminishing
audience.
A
further problem i found was that Brown tries to analyse what he means
by “courage”, and i'm not sure that i followed him properly;
either that or i just disagree with his definition. He seems to be
using a definition different from the usual, and it appears that it
is on occasion flexible to the point of not really meaning anything
other than “something i admire”; the chapter on Cicely Saunders,
for example, completely puzzles me, because i don't understand what
about her or her actions was courageous: Admirable, certainly,
needed, appropriate, difficult, each of these would be apposite
adjectives, but courageous
I
was ready to be pleased by Brown's choices of portrayers of courage,
a modern continuation of JFK's book in some sense, and was pleased to
see Mandela (obvious choice), Cavell (a uniquely British heroine),
and Wallenberg (unbelievably heroic, and not well-known enough) on
the cover. King and Kennedy (RFK, not his brother) and even
Bonhoeffer i imagined were particular and personal choices for Brown.
Saunders i knew nothing about, not even the name, so i had no
opinion; i have to say, having read the book, i can only imagine that
she is a personal hero of Brown's for some reason he feels unable to
bring out, or she is a cultural hero i haven't heard of (not an
uncommon thing), and he felt he couldn't miss her out, even though
she doesn't fit the scheme.
All
in all, not a successful book, by my criterion. Certainly, if i come
across it, i am quite likely to read another book by Brown; it won't
be on the basis of my pleasure in this one, though, so much as who he
is.
No comments:
Post a Comment